Not at all true, at least insofar as I understand the facts of the two cases. In Climategate, unethical and dishonest behavior was exposed, while here, as even his fellow traveler wrote he proved what? That heartland had a budget and planned to use it to advance the debate on the issue, while advocating for the position of the donors? Onoz! Hardly apples and oranges, even before considering the difference in how the "incriminating" material was obtained in the two cases.
Oops! Meant to say that it was hardly apples to apples, or else that it WAS apples and oranges.